do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-515/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) — Article 6(1) — Difference of treatment on grounds of age — National legislation providing for severance allowance to be paid to workers entitled on the date of termination of the employment relationship to a State retirement pension)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, age discrimination, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, severance pay, working conditions








C_2015138EN.01001101.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/11





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS
(Case C-515/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing for severance allowance to be paid to workers entitled on the date of termination of the employment relationship to a State retirement pension))
(2015/C 138/13)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin

Defendant: Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, from providing that an employer must, upon termination of the employment relationship of a salaried employee who has been continuously employed in the same undertaking for 12, 15 or 18 years, pay an amount equivalent to one, two or three months’ salary respectively, unless the salaried employee is entitled to receive a State retirement pension upon termination of employment to the extent that that legislation is both objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment and labour market policy as well as constituting an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim. It is for the national court to satisfy itself that this is the case.


(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Case T-385/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Orange v Commission (State aid — Pensions — Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom — Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions — Advantage — Selective nature — Adverse effect on competition — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, European official, State aid, control of State aid, pension scheme, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, telecommunications industry








C_2015118EN.01002501.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/25





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Orange v Commission
(Case T-385/12) (1)

((State aid - Pensions - Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom - Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions - Advantage - Selective nature - Adverse effect on competition - Rights of the defence))
(2015/C 118/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/540/EU of 20 December 2011 on State aid C 25/08 (ex NN 23/08) reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom (OJ 2012, L 279, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Orange to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
Case C-691/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Les Laboratoires Servier SA v Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 89/105/EEC — Article 6(2) — Establishment of a list of medicinal products reimbursed by the health insurance funds — Amendment of the conditions of reimbursement of a medicinal product when renewing its inclusion in such a list — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drugs classification, fixing of prices, health insurance, interpretation of the law, medicinal product, redemption








C_2015138EN.01001702.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/17





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Les Laboratoires Servier SA v Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
(Case C-691/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 89/105/EEC - Article 6(2) - Establishment of a list of medicinal products reimbursed by the health insurance funds - Amendment of the conditions of reimbursement of a medicinal product when renewing its inclusion in such a list - Obligation to state reasons))
(2015/C 138/22)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Les Laboratoires Servier SA

Defendant: Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to state reasons set out in that provision is applicable to a decision which reinstates a product in the list of medicinal products covered by the health insurance system, but which limits the reimbursement of that product to a specific category of patients.


(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.
Case T-365/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Lithuania v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development measures — ‘Natural handicaps’ and agri-environment — Appropriateness of controls — Flat-rate financial corrections — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF, EU financing arrangements, agricultural expenditure, financial control, principle of proportionality








C_2015118EN.01002602.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/26





Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Lithuania v Commission
(Case T-365/13) (1)

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development measures - ‘Natural handicaps’ and agri-environment - Appropriateness of controls - Flat-rate financial corrections - Proportionality))
(2015/C 118/34)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and A. Petrauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 123, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it imposes a financial correction of 5 % with respect to the agro-environmental measures connected with the criterion relating to the use of fertilisers;










2)


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3)


Orders the Republic of Lithuania and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.
Case C-623/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4 — Substantive scope — Levies on income from assets — General social contribution — Social debt repayment contribution — Social levy — Additional contribution to the social levy — Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes — Direct and sufficiently relevant link with some branches of social security)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, interpretation of the law, social security, tax








C_2015138EN.01001601.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/16





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter
(Case C-623/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4 - Substantive scope - Levies on income from assets - General social contribution - Social debt repayment contribution - Social levy - Additional contribution to the social levy - Participation in the financing of compulsory social security schemes - Direct and sufficiently relevant link with some branches of social security))
(2015/C 138/20)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Defendant: Gérard de Ruyter

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 and as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that levies on income from assets, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, have, when they contribute to the financing of compulsory social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of that regulation and thus fall within the scope of the regulation, even though those levies are imposed on the income from assets of taxable persons, irrespective of the pursuit by them of any professional activity.


(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
Case T-97/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, action for annulment, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015127EN.01003801.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/38





Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma)
(Case T-97/15)
(2015/C 127/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ines di Lelio (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma’ — Community trade mark No 3 108 289

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 656/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 insofar as it relates to Rule 20(2) of that regulation;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Deductions — Exemptions — Supplies of dental prostheses)
Date: 2015-02-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, dental medicine, intra-EU trade, medical device, tax exemption








C_2015138EN.01000501.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/5





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13)
(Joined Cases C-144/13, C-154/13 and C-160/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Deductions - Exemptions - Supplies of dental prostheses))
(2015/C 138/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: VDP Dental Laboratory NV (C-144/13), Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-154/13, C-160/13)

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-144/13), X BV (C-154/13), Nobel Biocare Nederland BV (C-160/13)

Operative part of the judgment







1)


Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2007/75/EC of 20 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the exemption from value added tax provided for by national law is incompatible with Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, Article 168 does not permit a taxable person both to benefit from that exemption and to exercise the right to deduct tax.










2)


Article 140(a) and (b) and Article 143(a) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax for which they provide applies to the intra-Community acquisition and the final importation of dental prostheses supplied by dentists and dental technicians where the Member State of the supply or importation has not implemented the transitional rules provided for in Article 370 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75.










3)


Article 140(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2007/75, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in that provision also applies where the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses originates from a Member State which has implemented the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 370 of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.